Use of antihistamines in pediatrics

A del Cuvillo,1 J Sastre,2 J Montoro,3 I Jáuregui,4 M Ferrer,5 I Dávila,6

J Bartra,7 J Mullol,8 A Valero,7
1
Clínica Dr. Lobatón, Cádiz, Spain
2
Service of Allergy, Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid, Spain
3
Allergy Unit, Hospital La Plana, Villarreal (Castellón), Spain
4
Service of Allergy, Hospital de Basurto, Bilbao, Spain
5
Department of Allergology, Clínica Universitaria de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
6
Service of Immunoallergy, Hospital Clínico, Salamanca, Spain
7
Allergy Unit. Service of Pneumology and Respiratory Allergy, Hospital Clínic (ICT), Barcelona, Spain
8
Rhinology Unit, ENT Service (ICEMEQ), Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain

■ Summary
Drugs with antihistamine action are among the most commonly prescribed medicines in pediatrics. According to the International Medical
Statistics (IMS), almost two million antihistamine units (in solution) for pediatric use were sold in Spain during 2006 - at a cost of nearly
6 million euros. Of this amount, 34% corresponded to first-generation (or sedating) antihistamines.
The difficulties inherent to research for drug development increase considerably when the pediatric age range is involved. The use of any
medication in this age group must adhere to the strictest safety criteria, and must offer the maximum guarantees of efficacy. For this reason,
detailed knowledge of the best scientific evidence available in relation to these aspects is essential for warranting drug use.
The first-generation antihistamines have never been adequately studied for pediatric age groups, though they are still widely used in
application to such patients. In contrast, studies in children have been made with the second-generation antihistamines, allowing us to
know their safety profile, and such medicines are available at pediatric dosages that have been well documented from the pharmacological
perspective.
The present review affords an update to our most recent knowledge on antihistamine use in children, based on the best scientific evidence
available.

Key words: Antihistamines. Pediatrics. Children. Allergic rhinitis. Atopic dermatitis. Allergic conjunctivitis.

■ Resumen
Los medicamentos con acción antihistamínica son uno de los grupos terapéuticos más usados en pediatría. En España, según datos de
IMS, se vendieron en 2006 cerca de dos millones de unidades de antihistamínicos (en solución) para uso pediátrico, lo que supuso un
gasto de casi 6 millones de euros. De este montante un 34% fueron antihistamínicos de primera generación o sedativos.
Las dificultades propias de la investigación para el desarrollo de fármacos se incrementan mucho cuando se trata de edades pediátricas.
El uso de cualquier fármaco en este grupo de edades debe argumentarse siguiendo los criterios más estrictos de seguridad y con las
máximas garantías de eficacia. Por este motivo, el conocimiento detallado de las mejores pruebas científicas disponibles en estos aspectos
es fundamental para respaldar su uso.
Los antihistamínicos de primera generación no han sido nunca correctamente estudiados para los grupos de edades pediátricas y sin
embargo, siguen siendo muy utilizados. Los antihistamínicos de segunda generación sí han aportado estudios en niños que permiten conocer
su perfil de seguridad, y están disponibles en dosificaciones pediátricas bien documentadas desde el punto de vista farmacológico.
En esta revisión se pretende realizar una actualización del conocimiento más reciente en cuanto al uso de antihistamínicos en niños, a
través de un enfoque basado en las mejores pruebas científicas disponibles.

Palabras clave: Antihistamínicos. Pediatría. Niños. Rinitis alérgica. Dermatitis atópica. Conjuntivitis alérgica.

J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2007; Vol. 17, Suppl. 2: 28-40 © 2007 Esmon Publicidad
 Use of antihistamines in pediatrics
Introduction
Drugs with antihistamine action are among the most
commonly prescribed medicines in pediatrics. According to the
data obtained by the Alergológica 2005 study [1], of the Spanish
Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology, 56.4% of all
pediatric patients (under age 14 years) in the study had received
some antihistamine prior to visiting the allergologist. Of these
drugs, 22% corresponded to first-generation antihistamines.
According to the International Medical Statistics (IMS), almost
two million antihistamine units (in solution) for pediatric use
were sold in Spain during 2006 - at a cost of nearly 6 million
euros. Of this amount, 34% corresponded to first-generation
(or sedating) antihistamines.
The difficulties inherent to research for drug development
increase considerably when the pediatric age range is
involved. The use of any medication in this age group must
adhere to the strictest safety criteria, and must offer the
maximum guarantees of efficacy. For this reason, detailed
knowledge of the best scientific evidence available in relation
to these aspects is essential for warranting drug use.
The European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA),
in its document “Guide to the clinical development of
medical products for the treatment of rhinoconjunctivitis”,
under the section on special considerations in pediatric
patients, specifies that in children over two years of age the
pharmacokinetic studies made prior to drug authorization
suffice to establish the minimum effective dose - assuming
that the efficacy results in adolescents /adults are also valid for
children. For children under two years of age, where immune
reaction is considered to be different, specific efficacy studies
are required. In all the age groups the safety data are of greater
importance, and studies involving one to three months of
follow-up are demanded, with special attention to the adverse
effects upon growth.
The first-generation antihistamines have never been
adequately studied for pediatric age groups, though they are
still used in an apparently high percentage of such patients. In
contrast, studies in children have been made with the second-
generation antihistamines, allowing us to know their safety
profile, and such medicines are available at pediatric dosages
that have been well documented from the pharmacological
perspective.
Over five years have elapsed since the last exhaustive
review based on scientific evidence was published in relation
to antihistamine use in pediatrics [2], and since then new data
have appeared and new scientific contributions have been
made that allow us to amplify current knowledge in support
of antihistamine use in pediatric patients. The present review
affords an update to such knowledge on antihistamine use in
children, based on the best scientific evidence available.
Pharmacological aspects of
antihistamines in pediatrics
The drug pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic
characteristics can differ greatly depending on the age
group considered. These characteristics determine efficacy
© 2007 Esmon Publicidad
29
and particularly safety, and make it possible to predict the
behavior of a given drug in the body.
Table 1 shows the most important pharmacological aspects
according to the studies published on the antihistamines most
widely used in pediatrics [3-23].
In general, antihistamines are well absorbed following
oral administration as both solid and liquid formulations, and
reach maximum plasma concentrations between 1-4 hours
after dosing in both pediatric patients and in adults.
The plasma half-life depends on the drug metabolization
and clearance processes within the body, and although such
processes are the same in both children and in adults, they are
comparatively accelerated in children in the case of certain
antihistamines. As a result, ideal dosing in such cases is once
every 12 hours instead of once every 24 hours (e.g., in the
case of levocetirizine in kindergarten children) [18-20].
All first-generation antihistamines, as well as most second-
generation drugs, are metabolized in the liver by the P450
cytochrome enzyme system. Only cetirizine, levocetirizine
and fexofenadine are largely eliminated without metabolic
transformation (in urine in the first two cases, and in bile in
the case of fexofenadine).
There are no studies of the effects of possible drug
interactions in pediatric age groups between antihistamines
and P450 cytochrome inhibitors, or drugs which are
metabolized via this pathway. The only exception is a study of
children with chloroquine-resistant malaria, where the plasma
concentrations of this drug were seen to be significantly
greater, and were reached sooner, when administered in
combination with chlorpheniramine [23].
The pharmacodynamic aspects, such as the onset of action
and its duration, are studied both in children and in adults
based on the histamine-induced skin wheal and erythema
inhibition model. The last column in Table 1 reports the time
intervals in which significant wheal and erythema inhibition
takes place with the different antihistamines. For most of
them, the time to action is within one hour, with persistence
of the effect during 24 hours.
In the same way as in adults, no tachyphylaxis or tolerance
of this effect on histamine-induced wheal and erythema
production is observed [8].
Efficacy of antihistamines in the
treatment of allergic rhinitis in children
Allergic rhinitis (hay fever) is the most frequent chronic
disorder in the pediatric population, and its prevalence is
increasing [24]. It can have an important impact upon the
health of the child, causing a reduction in quality of life [25],
and can influence the development of associated diseases such
as asthma, sinusitis or seromucosal otitis [26].
The H1 antihistamines have demonstrated their efficacy in
the treatment of pediatric allergic rhinitis in many studies and
in different age groups, though the methodological quality
of such studies has increased considerably only in the last
two decades. There are no well conducted clinical studies in
children involving first-generation antihistamines; as a result,
the latter should not be recommended as first line treatment.
J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2007; Vol. 17, Suppl. 2: 28-40
 30

Table 1. Pharmacological characteristics of the first- and second-generation antihistamines most commonly used in pediatric patients.

Drug Dose Patients Age Cp max Tmax T1/2 erythema/wheal

(mg or mg/kg*) (no.) (years) (ng/ml) (h) (h) (h)

First generation

Brompheniramine 4 14 9.5 ± 0.4 7.7 ± 0.7 3.2 ±0.3 12.4 ± 1.1 0.5 to 36

Chlorpheniramine 0.12* 11 11 ± 3 13.5 ± 3.5 2.5 ± 1.5 13.1 ± 6.3 1 to 24

Diphenhydramine 1.25* 7 8.9 ± 1.7 81.8 ± 30.2 1.3 ± 0.5 5.4 ± 1.8 1 to 12

Hydroxyzine 0.7* 12 6.1 ± 4.6 47.4 ± 17.3 2.0 ± 0.9 7.1 ± 2.3 n/d

J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2007; Vol. 17, Suppl. 2: 28-40

Ketotifen 1 (c/12h) 6 3±1 3.25 1.33 n/d n/d

Second generation

Cetirizine 5 10 8 ± 0.6 427.6 ± 144.2 1.4 ± 1.1 7.1 ± 1.6 1 to 24

10 9 8 ± 0.6 978.4 ± 340.6 0.8 ± 0.4 6.9 ± 1.6 0.5 to 24
A del Cuvillo, et al

5 8 2.7 560 ± 200 1.44 ± 1.1 4.9 ± 0.6 n/d

0.25 15 12.3 ± 5.5m 390 ± 135 2 ± 1.3 3.1 ± 1.8 90% at 12 h

Ebastine 5 10 7.3 ± 0.4 108.6 ± 11.8 2.8 ± 0.3 11.4 ± 0.7 0.5 to 28
10 7.8 ± 0.4 209.6 ± 24.2 3.4 ± 0.4 10.1 ± 1.1 0.5 a 28

Fexofenadine 30 (c/12 h) 14 9.8 ± 1.8 178 ± 22 2.4 ± 0.2 18.3 ± 1.2 1 to 24

60 (c/12h) 14 9.8 ± 1.8 286 ± 34 2.4 ± 0.2 17.6 ± 1 1 to 24
Loratadine 10 13 10.6 4.38 1 13.79 1 to 12
5 18 3.8 ± 1.1 7.8 1.2 n/d n/d

Levocetirizine 0.125* (c/12h) 15 20.7 ± 3.7m 286 ± 68 1 4.1 ± 0.67 1 to 28

0.18* 14 8.6 ± 0.4 450 ± 37 1.2 ± 0.2 5.7 ± 0.2 n/d

Desloratadine N 183 (76.3%) 58 >6m-<1

1.25 1-2

© 2007 Esmon Publicidad

 Use of antihistamines in pediatrics
However, there is sufficient scientific evidence to recommend
the use of second-generation antihistamines in the different
pediatric age groups: cetirizine, levocetirizine, ebastine,
fexofenadine and loratadine all have well documented clinical
efficacy in children - particularly after four years of age [2,27-
31]. For younger patients, studies are made fundamentally
to assess safety, and less information is obtained on efficacy
- due to the difficulty of conducting randomized, controlled
and masked clinical trials in small children. Adults show a
strong placebo effect in clinical studies of allergic rhinitis. In
children, this placebo effect may be a comparatively stronger
confounding factor, particularly when efficacy assessment is
based on subjective parameters such as symptoms scores or
days without symptoms (Figure 1). To avoid this problem,
it would be advisable to base such studies on objective
measures of improvement such as inflammatory markers
(nasal nitric oxide, nasal cytology) or the measurement
of nasal peak inspiratory flow, in order to establish dose-
response correlations.
In recent years, health-related quality of life (HRQoL)
has become a very important clinical variable for assessing
drug efficacy, based on the use of adequately validated
generic or specific questionnaires. We now have studies with
solid methodological designs that assess the usefulness of
antihistamines in improving the quality of life of children
with allergic rhinitis (Figure 2) [29].
In the same way as in adults, antihistamines are
effective in alleviating most of the symptoms of pediatric
allergic rhinitis: itching, rhinorrhea, and sneezing - though
they appear to be less effective against nasal congestion.
There are no randomized, controlled and masked clinical
trials warranting the use of formulations that mix first-
generation antihistamines with nasal decongesting agents
(systemic vasoconstrictors), despite the fact that they are
so often used in pediatric practice. A clinical study [32] has
demonstrated the efficacy (in terms of symptoms reduction)
of loratadine (a second-generation antihistamine) combined
with pseudoephedrine.
Likewise, no clinical studies have been published
comparing the efficacy of antihistamines with that of nasal
First control visit Second control visit
1 week 2 weeks
0
-0.2
Score Improvement
-0.4
P=0.015
-0.6
P=0.014
-0.8
Placebo
Levocetirizine
-1
© 2007 Esmon Publicidad
31
20
MTSS
10
0
Baseline Endpoint Baseline Endpoint
PLA L+PLA
Figure 1. Taken from reference 32. In this placebo controlled and masked
study, both the placebo group and the active treatment group showed
significant differences in total symptoms score versus baseline - though in
the active treatment series the total score was significantly more reduced
than in the placebo group.
corticoids for improving nasal congestion or the rest of
symptoms of allergic rhinitis in children - in contrast to the
situation in adults, where such studies have been made.
Efficacy of antihistamines in the
treatment of childhood asthma
A recent epidemiological study conducted in Spain,
Alergológica 2005 [1], showed that in children under 14
years of age with bronchial asthma, antihistamine treatment
was indicated in up to 30% of cases.
Histamine is an important inflammatory mediator within
the respiratory tract. Following provocation by an inhaled
allergen, it has been demonstrated that plasma histamine
levels increase, coinciding with the immediate and late
response phases of the allergic reaction. A rise in plasma
histamine also has been reported during asthma attacks.
End of treatment control visit
4 weeks
Figure 2. Taken from reference 29.
Improvement in the score of the Juniper
pediatric quality of life questionnaire
(PRQLQ) in a series of 306 children
between 6-12 years of age randomized
to receive levocetirizine or placebo as
treatment for allergic rhinitis during four
weeks, with double-blind masking.
SN
J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2007; Vol. 17, Suppl. 2: 28-40
32
Antihistamines such as ketotifen, cetirizine and loratadine
have shown a range of effects upon asthma: they reduce
exercise-induced asthma attacks [33], improve cough in
children with pollen allergy during the pollinic season [34],
and improve asthma symptoms in children [35].
A systematic review with metaanalysis has been
published on the efficacy of ketotifen as treatment alone or
in combination with other drugs for the control of asthma
and wheezing in children [36]. The review concluded that
the scientific evidence derived from randomized controlled
trials indicates that ketotifen alone or in combination with
other co-interventions effectively improves asthma and
wheezing control in children with mild and moderate asthma.
However, due to the high proportion of atopic children in
some trials, the results are not necessarily extendable to all
asthmatic children. The cost of the resulting benefit comprises
minor side effects such as sedation and body weight gain.
The validity of this conclusion is limited by the deficient
methodological quality of the trials included in the review.
According to the findings of the epidemiological study,
Alergológica 2005 [1], a full 51.6% of the asthmatic children
included (under 14 years of age) suffered allergic rhinitis-
conjunctivitis - thus supporting the hypothesis that rhinitis
and asthma form part of one same disease, on the basis
of their binding characteristics: histological (respiratory
epithelium), physiological (nasobronchial reflex), and
pathological (immune response to aeroallergens in two phases
- immediate and late). In many cases, asthmatic patients
with rhinitis receive antihistamine treatment, and it has been
seen that in such situations patient lung function improves
significantly [37]. Likewise, scientific evidence indicates that
correct management of rhinitis is associated with a significant
reduction in the risk of hospital admission and/or emergency
care due to asthma attacks [38].
Many studies have shown allergic rhinitis to be an
independent risk factor for the development of asthma [39].
It is interesting to postulate whether correct treatment of
rhinitis using antihistamines may prevent the development
of asthma, or even whether the treatment of atopic dermatitis
with antihistamines is able to prevent the disease. A number of
clinical studies have attempted to demonstrate this possibility
for ketotifen, cetirizine and loratadine - concluding that
ketotifen is very useful for preventing the development of
asthma in children with atopic dermatitis and high IgE levels
[40]. In addition, ketotifen has been shown to be effective
in preventing the development of asthma in children with
a family history of respiratory allergy and high IgE levels
[41], and cetirizine prevents the development of asthma in
children with atopic dermatitis sensitized to aeroallergens.
Moreover, such preventive effects persist for 18 months
after discontinuing the treatment (Figure 3) [42]. In turn,
loratadine has been shown to reduce the number of respiratory
exacerbations during the treatment period in a group of
children with repeated ear, nose and throat infections (5 or
more), without prior asthma [43].
A metaanalysis has reviewed the efficacy of oxatomide
in relation to stable asthma control in adults and children.
The study concluded that there is no scientific evidence that
this drug exerts a significant effect upon the control of stable
J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2007; Vol. 17, Suppl. 2: 28-40
A del Cuvillo, et al
18 months treatment 18 months follow-up
1
p = 0.040
0.9
Breslow·Day test interaction between
treatment and atopic status
0.8 HDM ↑
Probability for Developing Asthma
PLA (n=68)
0.7
0.6
0.5 HDM ↓
CTZ (n=291)
0.4
HDM ↓
CTZ (n=277)
0.3
0.2
0.1 HDM ↑
CTZ (n=56)
0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
Figure 3. Taken from reference 42. Probability of developing asthma in
children according to treatment with placebo or cetirizine, and according
to specific IgE levels for house dust mites.
asthmatic disease - though a number of studies reported
benefits in terms of subjective parameters. The adverse effects
were greater with oxatomide than with placebo [44].
Efficacy of antihistamines in the
treatment of atopic dermatitis in
children
The Alergológica 2005 epidemiological study [1] showed
that 73.6% of the children diagnosed with atopic dermatitis and
included in the study were prescribed antihistamine therapy - a
first-generation drug being involved in 20% of the cases.
The physiopathology of atopic dermatitis is complex and
involves multiple cell populations, which in turn produce a
range of cytokines and chemokines that interact with each
other. One feature is the presence of mast cells within the
papillary and reticular dermis of the affected skin areas, where
histamine appears to play a role as cofactor in itching.
Antihistamines are widely used to treat this disease,
despite the fact that there are no clinical studies of sufficient
methodological quality to warrant such generalized practice.
A metaanalysis has reviewed the existing scientific evidence
on the efficacy of antihistamines in reducing pruritus due
to atopic dermatitis. The conclusion was that there is scant
objective evidence of any relief of this symptom, and that
antihistamine efficacy in application to atopic dermatitis
remains to be demonstrated [45]. As an anecdote, this
metaanalysis mentions that the sedating antihistamines
have been found to be useful in some studies, thanks to their
capacity to induce drowsiness or sedation. However, there
is one study that has concluded that chlorpheniramine is not
more effective than placebo in ameliorating the symptoms of
childhood atopic dermatitis with nocturnal itching and scratch
marks, and that antihistamine use does not affect the amount
of topical treatment used over the short term [46].
In a clinical study published after the aforementioned
metaanalysis, it was concluded that cetirizine reduces the
© 2007 Esmon Publicidad
 Use of antihistamines in pediatrics
duration and amount of topical corticoid treatment used in
children with the worst atopic dermatitis (according to the
SCORAD index) [47].
Efficacy of antihistamines in the
treatment of childhood urticaria
Acute urticaria is the most common type of urticaria in the
pediatric population, and is normally caused by an immediate
hypersensitivity reaction to some food, or following viral
infections. Chronic urticaria is much less common in children,
and an important percentage of diagnosed cases correspond
to physical causes [1,48].
The Alergológica 2005 epidemiological study [1] showed
82.3% of the cases of urticaria in children under 14 years of age
included in the study were of an acute nature, while the remaining
17.7% of cases were diagnosed as chronic presentations [1].
In adults, the H1 antihistamines have demonstrated their
efficacy in alleviating urticaria symptoms, though to date
no studies of the required methodological quality have been
conducted in children with urticaria of any origin.
In another study carried out in children presenting
atopic dermatitis, and involving cetirizine administered
with the purpose of preventing the development of asthma,
a prophylactic effect was demonstrated in relation to acute
urticaria, since during the 18 months of active treatment the
number of acute urticaria episodes was significantly lower
than in the placebo series - an effect that did not persist during
18 months of follow-up without active treatment [49].
Efficacy of antihistamines in the
treatment of anaphylaxis in children
Few data have been published on the role of antihistamines
in the treatment of anaphylaxis in children.
A study has assessed the role of promethazine in the
prevention of anaphylaxis following the bite of a type of
snake found in tropical South America (mapanare) - no
significant performance in favor of the active treatment group
versus placebo being found [50].
In a review of 22 cases of idiopathic anaphylaxis in
children, treatment including hydroxyzine and in some cases
ketotifen proved successful in improving patient response to
corticoids. Intramuscular adrenalin was always on hand for
immediate treatment, and the antihistamine was used as an
adjuvant for symptoms control [51].
Efficacy of antihistamines in the
treatment of respiratory tract
infections in children
Formulations containing antihistamines only, or in
combination with other drugs (antitussive agents, systemic
decongesting drugs, etc.), are widely used for symptoms
control and the treatment of respiratory tract infections in
children.
© 2007 Esmon Publicidad
33
A metaanalysis has reviewed the usefulness of
antihistamine treatment in application to the common cold,
concluding that these drugs administered as monotherapy
in adults and children afford no clinical relief of nasal
congestion, rhinorrhea or sneezing, and do not subjectively
improve the common cold. Moreover, the first-generation
antihistamines induced more side effects than placebo,
particularly increased sedation in the patients with a common
cold. The combinations of antihistamines with decongesting
agents are not effective in small children. In older children
and in adults, most studies report a beneficial effect in terms
of general recovery, as well as in the nasal symptoms, when
these combinations are used. However, the metaanalysis also
concludes that the clinical relevance of these effects is not
clear (Figure 4) [52].
In another study designed to determine whether continued
treatment with a non-sedating antihistamine (loratadine)
is able to prevent upper airways infections, the only
conclusion was that children administered the drug suffered
fewer respiratory exacerbations during the active treatment
phase than the placebo group - though this protective effect
disappeared on suspending the treatment [43]. This study
concluded that the upper airways infections rate in children
at risk of suffering such infections decreases considerably
with age, and is not significantly influenced by treatment
with loratadine.
Efficacy of antihistamines in the
treatment of otitis media in children
Otitis media is the most common cause of childhood
hearing loss, and is one of the most common reasons for
visiting the pediatrician [53]. Elevations in histamine
concentration in the middle ear effusions of patients with
otitis media have been demonstrated [54], along with
elevations in other allergic inflammation mediators. The use
of antihistamines in application to this pathology therefore
could be justified.
A metaanalysis has reviewed the efficacy of antihistamines
either alone or in combination with decongesting agents, in
the treatment of otitis media with effusion (seromucosal
otitis). No statistically or clinically significant benefit was
observed in relation to any of the interventions or results
considered. Nevertheless, the treated subjects suffered an 11%
greater incidence of side effects than the non-treated patients.
The calculated number-needed-to-treat (NNT) to cause an
adverse effect was found to be 9. The authors of the study
therefore recommended that such therapy should be avoided.
As regards the research implications, this systematic review
concluded that antihistamines may be useful specifically for
seromucosal otitis in allergic patients [55].
Another metaanalysis has reviewed the effect of
antihistamines (and of nasal decongestants) in application
to acute otitis media in children. The study concluded
that only the group administered active treatment with
the combination of both types of drug showed clinically
significant improvement - though the benefit in any case
was small, and the study design may have biased the results.
J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2007; Vol. 17, Suppl. 2: 28-40
34 A del Cuvillo, et al

Journal: Antihistamines for the common cold

Comparison: 01 monotherapy - general evaluation - all trials
Consequence: 01 at short term (1-2 days)
Study Treatment Controls Peto disparity ratio Weighting Peto disparity ratio
n/N n/N 95% (%) 95% CI

Cowan 1950 283 / 388 139 / 207 13.9 1.32.[0.91, 1.92]

Henauer 1988 11 / 28 21 / 35 2.0 0.44 [0.17, 1.19]
Howard 1979 97 / 133 112 / 138 6.0 0.63 [0.36, 1.11]
Lorriman 1950 306 / 697 286 / 710 42.6 1.16 [0.94, 1.43]
MRC (Parte II) 1950 301 / 579 334 / 577 35.6 0.79 [0.63, 0.99]

Total (95 % IC) 998 /1825 892 / 1667 100.0 0.97 [0.85, 1.12]
Chi-square heterogeneity test=13.22 gl=4 p=0.0103
General effect test Z= 0.37 p=0.7

-1 2 1 6 10
Supports treatment Supports control

Figure 4. Taken from reference 52. Metaanalysis of the efficacy of antihistamines in alleviating the symptoms of the common cold (general evaluation),
over the short term.

The observed risk of adverse events was 5- to 8-fold greater
among the active treatment patients than in the placebo series,
and this difference proved significant for the groups receiving
treatment with decongesting agents [56].
Other uses of antihistamines in children
1. Antihistamine efficacy in application to cough
A metaanalysis reviewing antihistamine effectiveness
in the treatment of prolonged nonspecific cough in children
concluded that on the basis of the existing scientific evidence,
empirical treatment with these drugs cannot be recommended
- in contraposition to the recommendations in adults. The
analysis also stressed that the systematic review posed
important limitations, since only three studies with marked
methodological differences could be included. It was thus
concluded that if antihistamine treatment is decided, it
should be discontinued if no response is elicited within two
weeks [57].
Another metaanalysis evaluated the efficacy of
antihistamines in acute cough in children - concluding
that antihistamines in combination with decongestants
(brompheniramine/phenylpropanolamine and
brompheniramine/phenylephrine/propanolamine) was no
superior to placebo in the two studies included, and that
antihistamines alone (clemastine and chlorpheniramine)
afforded no greater benefit than placebo in another study
[58].
2. Antihistamine efficacy in application to allergic
conjunctivitis
Although few studies unequivocally and independently
document the efficacy of antihistamines in application to
allergic conjunctivitis, there are sufficient to date to indicate
that antihistamines are effective in treating this disorder,
which tends to accompany rhinitis - since many studies
designed to assess antihistamine efficacy in rhinitis included
some variable for assessing the effect of treatment upon
conjunctivitis.
Topical ketotifen applied to the eye is able to significantly
reduce ocular itching after conjunctival provocation with the
causal allergen [59].
Emedastine and levocabastine in ophthalmological
solution have been shown to alleviate the symptoms of
allergic conjunctivitis in children - symptoms reduction being
significantly greater with emedastine than with levocabastine
[60].
A study made with azelastine in eyedrops showed this
topical solution to significantly reduce the symptoms of
nonspecific conjunctival hyper-responsiveness in children
with allergy to dust mites who presented this syndrome [61].
Likewise, azelastine was seen in another study to significantly
reduce the symptoms scores in small children with seasonal
allergic conjunctivitis, compared with placebo [62].
A study has also been published comparing the efficacy
of levocabastine versus sodium cromoglycate (both as topical
ophthalmological formulation) for the control of symptoms
of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when used upon demand
versus continuous nasal spray treatment. Both treatment
modalities were found to be equally effective, though the
investigators concluded that for certain symptoms such as
sneezing, lacrimation and nasal congestion, levocabastine
was significantly better than sodium cromoglycate in reducing
such manifestations [63].
3. Other uses without indication
Studies have been published that demonstrate the efficacy
of antihistamines in relation to indications not contemplated
in the Summary of Product Characteristics. Examples include
loratadine for the prevention of mosquito bite reactions in
sensitive children [64], the itching of varicella [65], ketotifen

J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2007; Vol. 17, Suppl. 2: 28-40 © 2007 Esmon Publicidad
 Use of antihistamines in pediatrics
in ulcerative colitis [66], cetirizine in eosinophilic cellulitis
[67], as premedication in anesthesia [68-70], the treatment
of nausea and vomiting caused by antineoplastic treatment
in children [71], or for reinforcing chloroquine treatment in
children with malaria [72].
Role of antihistamines as
antiinflammatory medication in
children
The efficacy of antihistamines is attributed mainly to their
antagonistic effect upon the histamine receptors. We now
know that these receptors exhibit constitutive spontaneous
activity, and that the antihistamines act as reverse agonists
upon them - inactivating the activated conformation and
reducing the mentioned constitutive activity. The H1 receptor
has been associated with many actions in relation to allergic
inflammation, such as rhinorrhea, smooth muscle contraction,
and many forms of itching (pruritus). This is mediated by
the transduction of extracellular signals through G protein
and intracellular second messengers (inositol triphosphate,
diacylglycerol, phospholipase D and A2, and increases in
intracellular calcium concentration). Recently there have also
been reports of NF-κB transcription factor activation by the H1
receptors, which would explain the antiinflammatory actions of
antihistamines via this route – since the mentioned transcription
factor is associated with actions such as the regulation of
adhesion molecules, chemotaxis, proinflammatory cytokine
production, and antigen presentation [73].
A number of clinical studies in children have shown
that cetirizine reduces leukotriene production in vitro [74],
reduces nitric oxide (NO) production [75] and the presence
of ICAM-1 at endothelial cell membrane level [76], induces
a change in Th1/Th2 balance in favor of a Th1 response,
with increases in IFN-gamma and IL-10 [77], and reduces
cytokines and inflammatory cell infiltrates [78].
Ketotifen, in a clinical study versus montelukast, was
seen to reduce plasma cytokines to a greater extent than
montelukast, in children with persistent mild asthma [79].
Antihistamines have demonstrated antiinflammatory
effects in clinical studies in children, both ex vivo and in vivo.
The true relevance of this antiinflammatory action in relation
to the clinical effect of antihistamine treatment remains to
be established.
One of the most important questions in this context is
the relevance of prescribing antihistamine treatment on an
intermittent or continuous basis with the purpose of preventing
the development of disease in asymptomatic subjects presumed
to present a persistent minimal inflammatory process. A
recent clinical study has explored this aspect, administering
desloratadine on an intermittent basis (upon demand) or
regularly in children diagnosed with allergic rhinitis secondary
to pollen sensitization. The study concluded that both treatment
regimens are equally effective in terms of rhinitis control,
but that regular administration afforded better control of the
symptoms of bronchial hyper-responsiveness, with a lesser
use of bronchodilators upon demand, and with better results
in the methacholine provocation tests [80].
© 2007 Esmon Publicidad
35
Adverse effects and safety issues of
antihistamine use in children
The different national and international drug agencies
admit that there are currently many medicines authorized for
use in children that have never been adequately investigated
for application in such patients - though in their day they
received authorization out of a lack of regulation of the
required specifications. In this sense, their use is still allowed
because the pharmacovigilance systems have not detected any
adverse effects requiring their withdrawal from the market.
Many of the antihistamine indications in children have been
based on the extrapolation of the effects of these drugs in
adults. Worse still, calculation of the pediatric doses has been
done with little or no pharmacokinetic data corresponding to
the different pediatric age groups.
1. First-generation antihistamines
The first-generation antihistamines extensively cross the
blood-brain barrier, and therefore exert an important effect
upon the central nervous system. Few studies have explicitly
investigated the effect of first-generation antihistamines upon
the central nervous system in children, though some data have
been obtained from comparative studies contrasting first- and
second-generation antihistamines.
The first-generation antihistamines, diphenhydramine
and hydroxyzine, were objectively assessed for effects upon
cognitive processes - P300 potential latency - and drowsiness
using a visual analog scale (VAS), in children with allergic
rhinitis. The study concluded that both drugs induce objective
dysfunction at central nervous system level, and drowsiness
[81].
Another clinical trial evaluated the action of
chlorpheniramine, terfenadine and placebo upon the central
nervous system in a group of children with allergic rhinitis
- concluding that neither terfenadine nor placebo induced
cognitive changes, in contrast to chlorpheniramine [82].
In another study of 24 children between 7 and 14 years
of age diagnosed with allergic rhinitis, it was seen that both
chlorpheniramine and cetirizine induces significant cognitive
alterations versus placebo, though such alterations were not
correlated to subjective appraisal of dysfunction as assessed
by means of a visual analog scale [83].
In addition to the effects upon the central nervous system,
the first-generation antihistamines - as a result of their action
upon receptors other than the histamine receptors - can
cause adverse effects (as has been reported in the literature)
including vision alterations, mucosal membrane dryness
and other effects derived from the anticholinergic action of
these drugs.
As a result of their action upon the serotoninergic
receptors, some antihistamines can induce an increase in
appetite and body weight gain. In the case of cyproheptadine,
this particular effect has been known for a long time (initially
reported in 1962), and is presently used as a therapeutic
indication [84,85].
There have been reports of many rare adverse effects
in children administered first-generation antihistamines,
including spasms [86], seizures [87], aggressivity [88],
respiratory distress [89], fixed skin rash [90], central
J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2007; Vol. 17, Suppl. 2: 28-40
36
anticholinergic syndrome [91,92] and toxic encephalopathy
in patients with skin syndromes (atopic dermatitis, varicella)
involving damage to the skin barrier, in whom first-generation
antihistamines were applied topically [93].
It is important to consider the consequences of either
accidental or intentional overdose of these drugs in children.
As a result of their action upon different types of receptors
(histaminic, serotoninergic, cholinergic, dopaminergic), the
first-generation antihistamines are potentially lethal in cases
of overdose, and both deaths and serious toxicity have been
documented in pediatric patients [94,95].
2. Second-generation antihistamines
The second-generation antihistamines are known as
non-sedating antihistamines because they do not cross the
blood-brain barrier - a fact that minimizes their action upon
the central nervous system.
Their few adverse effects and good tolerance have
been well documented in many clinical studies, involving
administration over long periods of time, and in almost
all pediatric age groups [2]. Thus, cetirizine [27,96],
levocetirizine [28,29], loratadine [17,30], desloratadine
[97,98], ebastine [99] and fexofenadine [31] all have well
documented safety over the short and middle term, and some
also over the long term.
An important point arising from antihistamine action
upon the central nervous system is how such actions can
affect school performance. Since allergic rhinitis itself is
able to affect school performance, because of the symptoms
involved and the impairment of sleep quality, it is important
to assess the impact of treatment and its adverse effects in
relation to the disease and to improvement or worsening of
school performance. A clinical study comparing loratadine
and diphenhydramine concluded that loratadine improved
academic performance, in contrast to diphenhydramine,
which worsened it [100]. Another study evaluated the impact
of long-term cetirizine treatment in children with atopic
dermatitis - concluding that there were no adverse effects
upon learning [101].
A very important issue emerged in the nineties when cardiac
adverse effects were reported (arrhythmias) in relation to
second-generation antihistamine use. It has been demonstrated
that such effects are not class effects but rather are related to each
particular molecule [73], and there have been reports in children
of syncope during or after exercise, loss of consciousness or
palpitations [102] with the administration of astemizole. Both
this latter drug and terfenadine have been removed from the
market in the great majority of countries because of this effect,
and the new antihistamines are required to pass strict safety
controls in relation to potential cardiotoxicity, before being
authorized for introduction on the market.
The absence of cardiotoxicity with antihistamines such
as cetirizine [103], loratadine [103], fexofenadine [104]
and ebastine [105] has been well established. Since they
have been marketed only recently, both levocetirizine and
desloratadine have been required to document the absence of
such cardiotoxicity according to very strict criteria, based on
the new demands of the international drug agencies, in order to
be authorized for use in pediatric patients - though no published
studies are available.
J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2007; Vol. 17, Suppl. 2: 28-40
A del Cuvillo, et al
To date, the pharmacovigilance systems have received no
reports of arrhythmias related to administration of the rest of
the second-generation antihistamines at both therapeutic doses
and in cases of overdose.
Conclusions
In the last two decades many clinical studies of sufficient
methodological quality have been made and published - thus
allowing consolidation of the indication for the application of
second-generation antihistamines to allergic rhinitis in children.
Although the level of scientific support of the use of antihistamines
for the treatment of mild to moderate asthma, fundamentally in
relation to ketotifen, is limited by the questionable quality of the
studies published and analyzed in the context of metaanalyses,
the use of this antihistamine nevertheless can be recommended.
In dermatological alterations such as atopic dermatitis or chronic
urticaria, the indication remains to be established. In some cases,
and despite the widespread prescription of antihistamines, the
existing scientific evidence advises against their use - as in the
common cold, seromucosal otitis, or nonspecific cough.
Special caution is required when establishing indications
not contained in the Summary of Product Characteristics, or
which have not been investigated in the drug development
phase or expressly in the postmarketing period (such as
sedation, analgesia or the prevention of vomiting), since
the potential adverse effects - particularly with the first-
generation antihistamines - make the safety of such practices
questionable to say the least.
It also must be commented that many of these first-
generation antihistamines, with authorization in the Summary
of Product Characteristics for pediatric use, are over-the-
counter (OTC) drugs freely available in pharmacies - a fact
that adds to the potential for adverse effects.
Table 2 reports the degree of recommendation and the
levels of scientific evidence according to the classification
of Shekelle et al. [106], based on the publications considered
in this review.
Table 2. Evidence in support of antihistamine use in different
pathologies
Clinical picture Degree of evidence
(Level of recommendation)
Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis 1b (A)
Asthma (only ketotifen) 1a (A)
Atopic dermatitis 2b (B)
Urticaria 1b (A)
Anaphylaxis 3 (C)
Respiratory infections * 4 (D)
Otitis media * 4 (D)
* The existing evidence advises against use in these clinical conditions,
due to the risk of adverse effects
© 2007 Esmon Publicidad
 Use of antihistamines in pediatrics
In conclusion, and on the basis of the present review,
it seems clear that the non-cardiotoxic second-generation
antihistamines are the drugs of choice for the recommended
treatment indications, for patients of all ages. In this context,
the first-generation drugs should be held in reserve for
infrequent situations where their adverse effects may prove
desirable, or when parenteral dosing is required.
It appears necessary to continue focusing research
on concrete population subgroups or specific indications
(seromucosal otitis, asthma in allergic children, etc.), in order
to warrant these indications and further define aspects such
as the dosage and the treatment regimen best suited to each
individual case.
References
1. Garde Garde J Ma, Ibáñez Sandín Ma D. Alergia en Menores de
14 años. In: Alergológica 2005. Factores epidemiológicos, clínicos
y socioeconómicos de las enfermedades alérgicas en España en
2005. Madrid. Luzan 5, S.A. de Ediciones. 2006:325-387.
2. Simons FE. H1 antihistamines in children. Clin Allergy
Immunol. 2002;17:437-464.
3. Simons FER, Roberts JR, Gu X, Kapur S, Simons KJ. The clinical
pharmacology of brompheniramine in children. J Allergy Clin
Immunol. 1999; 103:223-226.
4. Simons FER, Luciuk GH, Simons KJ. Pharmacokinetics and
efficacy of chlorpheniramine in children. J Allergy Clin
Immunol. 1982;69:376-381.
5. Simons KJ, Watson WTA, Martin TJ, Chen XY, Simons FER.
Diphenhydramine: pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics
in elderly adults, young adults and children. J Clin Pharmacol.
1990;30:665-671.
6. Simons FER, Simons KJ, Becker AB, Haydey RP. Pharmacokinetics
and antipruritic effects of hidroxyzine in children with atopic
dermatitis. J Pediatr. 1984;104:123-127.
7. Schmidt-Redeman B, Brenneisen P, Schmidt-Redeman W,
Gonda S. The determination of pharmacokinetic parameters
of ketotifen in steady state in young children. Int J Clin
Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1986;24:496-498.
8. Watson WTA, Simons KJ, Chen XY, Simons FER. Cetirizine:
a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation in
children with seasonal allergic rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
1989;84:457-464.
9. Desager JP, Dab I, Horsmans Y, Harvengt C. A pharmacokinetic
evaluation of the second generation H1-receptor antagonist
cetirizine in very young children. Clin Pharmacol Ther.
1993;53:431-435.
10. Spicak V, Dab I, Hulthoven R, Desager J-P, Klanova M,
De Longueville M, Harvengt C. Pharmacokinetics and
pharmocodynamics of cetirizine in infants an toddlers. Clin
Pharmacol Ther. 1997;61:325-330.
11. Pitsiu M, Hussein Z, Majid O, Aaron L, de Longueville M,
Stockis A. Retrospective population pharmacokinetic analysis
of cetirizine in children aged 6 months to 12 years. Br J Clin
Pharmacol. 2004;57:402-411.
12. Simons FE, Johnston L, Simons KJ. Clinical pharmacology
of the H1-receptor antagonist cetirizine and loratadine in
children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2000; 11:116-119.
© 2007 Esmon Publicidad
37
13. Simons FER, Watson WTA, Simons KJ. Pharmacokinetics
and pharmacodynamics of ebastine in children. J Pediatr.
1993;122:641-646.
14. Simons FER, Bergman JN, Watson WTA, Simons KJ. The clinical
pharmacology of fexofenadine in children. J Allergy Clin
Immunol. 1996; 98:1062-1064.
15. Krishna R, Krishnawami S, Kitner B, Sankoh AJ, Jensen BK. The
utility of mixed-effects covariate analysis in rapid selection of
doses in pediatric subjects: a case study with fexofenadine
hydrochloride. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 2004; 25:373-387.
16. Lin CC, Radwanski E, Affrime MB, Cayen MN. Pharmacokinetics
of loratadine in pediatric subjects. Am J Ther. 1995;2:504-
508.
17. Salmun LM, HerronJM, Banfield C, Padhi D, Lorber R, Affrime
MB. The pharmacokinetics, electrocardiographic effects and
tolerability of loratadine syrup in children aged 2 to 5 years.
Clin Ther. 2000;22:613-621.
18. Simons FE, the ETAC study group. Population pharmacokinetics
of levocetirizine in very young childrIn: the pediatricians’
perspective. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2005;16:97-103.
19. Hussein Z, Ptisius M, Majid O, Aarons L, de Longueville M, Stockis
A, ETAC Study group. Retrospective population pharmacokinetics
of levocetirizine in atopic children receiving cetirizine: the ETAC
study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2005; 59:28-37.
20. Cranwick N, Turkizova J, Fuchs M, Hulhoven R. Levocetirizine in
1-2 year old childrIn: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic
profile. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2005;43:172-177.
21. Simons FE, Simons KJ. Levocetirizine: pharmacokinetics and
pharmacodynamics in children age 6 to 11 years. J Allergy
Clin Immunol. 116: 355-361.
22. Gupta SK, Kantesaria B, Banfield C, Wang Z. Desloratadine
dose selection in children aged 6 months to 2 year: comparison
of population pharmacokinetics between children and adults.
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007; Epub ahead of print.
23. Okonkwo CA, Coker HAB, Agomo PU, Ogunbanwo JA, Mafe
AG, Agomo CO Afolabi BM. Effect of chlorpheniramine on the
pharmacokinetics of and response to chloroquine of Nigerian
children with falciparum malaria. Transactions of the Royal
Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 1999;93: 306-311.
24. Meltzer EO. Allergic rhinitis: managing the pediatric spectrum.
Allergy Asthma Proc. 2006;27:2-8.
25. Juniper EF, Howland WC, Roberts NB, Thompson AK, King DR.
Measuring quality of life in children with rhinoconjunctivitis. J
Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998;101:163-170.
26. Lack G. Pediatric allergic rhinitis and comorbid disorders. J
Allergic Clin Immunol. 2001;108(1 suppl): S9-15.
27. Lai DS, Lue KH, Hsieh JC, Lin KL, Lee HS. The comparison of
the efficacy and safety of cetirizine, oxatomide, ketotifen and
a placebo for the treatment of childhood perennial allergic
rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2002;89: 589-598.
28. De Blic J, WahnU, Billard E, Alt R, Pujazon MC. Levocetirizine
in childrIn: evidenced efficacy and safety in a 6 week
randomized seasonal allergic trial. Pediatr Allergy Immunol.
2005;16: 267-75.
29. Potter PC, Paediatric levocetirizine study group. Efficacy and
safety of levocetirizine on symptoms and health-related
quality of life in children with perennial allergic rhinitis: a
double-blind, placebo controlled randomized clinical trial.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2005;95:175-180.
J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2007; Vol. 17, Suppl. 2: 28-40
38 A del Cuvillo, et al
30. Yang YH, Lin YT, Lu MY, Tsai MJ, Chiang BL. A double-blind,
placebo controlled and randomized study of loratadine
(clarityne) syrup for the treatment of allergic rhinitis in
children aged 3 to 12 years. Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol.
2001;19:171-175.
31. Meltzer EO, Scheimann P, Rosado Pinto JE, Bachert C, Hedlin
G, Wahn U, Finn AF Jr., Ruuth E. Safety and efficacy of oral
fexofenadine in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis. A
pooled analysis of three studies. Pediatr Allergy Immunol.
2004;15:253-260.
32. Serra HA, Alves O, Rizzo LF, Devoto FM, Ascierto H. Loratadine-
pseudoephedrine in children with allergic rhinitis, a controlled
double-blind trial. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;45:147-150.
33. Baki A, Orhan F. The effect of loratadine in exercise induced
asthma. Arch Dis Chile. 2002;86:38-39.
34. Ciprandi G, Tosca M, Ricca V, Passalacqua G, Fregonese L,
Fasce L, Canónica GW. Cetirizine treatment of allergic cough in
children with pollen allergy. Allergy. 1997;52:752-754.
35. Kabra SK, Pandey RM, Singh R, Seth V. Ketotifen for asthma in
children aged 5 to 15 years: a randomized placebo controlled
trial. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2000; 85 (1): 46-52.
36. Schwarzer G, Bassler D, Mitra A, Ducharme FM, Foster J.
Ketotifen alone or as additional medication for long term
control of asthma and wheeze in children. Cochrane Database
Syst Rev. 2004; CD001384.
37. Corren J, Harris AG, Aaronson D, Beaucher W, Berkowitz R,
Bronsky E, Chen R, Chervinsky P, Cohen R, Fourre J, Grossman
J, Meltzer E, Pedinoff A, Stricker W, Wanderer A. Efficacy and
safety of loratadina plus pseudoephedrine in patients with
seasonal allergic rhinitis and mild asthma. J Allergy Clin
Immunol. 1997;100:781-788.
38. Corren J, Manning BE, Thompson SF, Hennesy S, Strom BL. Rhinitis
therapy and the prevention of hospital care for asthma: a case-
control study. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;113:415-419.
39. Corren J. The connection between allergic rhinitis and
bronchial asthma. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2007;13:13-18.
40. Iikura Y, Naspitz CK, Mikawa H, Talaricoficho S, Baba M, Sole
D, Nishima S. Prevention of asthma by ketotifen in infants
with atopic dermatitis. Ann Allergy. 1992;68:233-236.
41. Bustos GJ, Bustos D, Bustos GJ, Romero O. Prevention of
asthma with ketotifen in preasthmatic childrIn: a three year
follow-up study. Clin Exp Allergy. 1995;25:568-573.
42. Warner JO: ETAC study group. Early treatment of the atopic
child. A double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled
trial of cetirizine in preventing the onset of asthma in
children with atopic dermatitis: 18 months’ treatment and
18 months’ posttreatment follow up. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
2001;108:929-937.
43. Grimfeld A, Holgates ST, Canonica GW, Bonini S, Borres MP, Adam
D, Canseco Gonzalez C, Lobaton P, Patel P, Szczeklik A, Danzig
MR, Roman I, Bismut H, Czarlewski W. Prophylactic management
of children at risk for recurrent upper respiratory infection: the
preventia I study. Clin Exp Allergy. 2004;34:1665-1672.
44. Hayashi K, Yanagi M, Wood-Baker R, Takamatsu I, Anami K.
Oxatomide for stable asthma in adults and children. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2003; (2): CD002179.
45. Klein PA, Clark RA. An evidence-base review of the efficacy of
antihistamines in relieving pruritus in atopic dermatitis. Arch
Dermatol. 1999;135:1522-1525.
J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2007; Vol. 17, Suppl. 2: 28-40
46. Munday J, Bloomfield R, Goldman M, Robey H, Kitowska
GJ, Gwiezdziski Z, Wankiewicz, Marks R Protas-Drozd F,
Mikaszewska M. Chlorfeniramine is no more effective than
placebo in relieving the symptoms of childhood atopic
dermatitis with a nocturnal itching and scratching component.
Dermatology. 2002;205:40-45.
47. Diepgen TL; Early treatment of the atopic child study group.
Long-term treatment with cetirizine of infants with atopic
dermatitis: a multi-country, double-blind, randomized,
placebo-comtrolled trial (the ETAC trial) over 18 months.
Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2002;13:278-286.
48. Mortureux P, Léauté-Labrèze C, Legrain-Lifermann V, Lamireau
T, Sarlangue J, Taieb A. Acute urticaria en infancy and early
childhood. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134:319-323.
49. Simons FER, on behalf of the ETAC Study group. Prevention
of acute urticaria en young children with atopic dermatitis. J
Allergy Clin Immunol. 2001;107:703-706.
50. Fan HW, Marcopito LF, Cardoso JL, Franca FO, Malaque CM,
Ferrari RA, Theakson RD, Warrell DA. Sequential randomised
and double blind trial of promethazine prophylaxis against
early anaphylactic reactions to antivenom for bothrops snake
bites. BMJ. 1999;318:1451-1452.
51. Ditto AM, Krasnick J, Greenberger PA, Kelly KJ, McGrath K,
Patterson R. Pediatric idiopathic anaphylaxis: experience with
22 patients. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1997;100:320-326.
52. Sutter AI, Lemiengre M, Campbell H, Mackinnon HF.
Antihistamines for the common cold. Cochrane Database Syst
Rev. 2003;3:CD001267.
53. Teele DW, Klein JO, Rosner B. Middle ear disease and the
practice of pediatrics: Burden during the first years of life.
JAMA. 1983;249:1026-9.
54. Chonmaitree T, Patel JA, Left-Brown MA, Uchida T, Garofalo R,
Owen MJ, Howie VM. Virus and bacteria enhance histamine
production in middle ear fluids of children with acute otitis
media. J Infect Dis. 1994;169:1265-1270.
55. Griffin GH, Flynn C, Bailey RE, Schultz JK. Antihistamines
and/or decongestants for otitis media with effusion (OME) in
children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;4:CD003423.
56. Flynn CA, Griffin GH, Schultz JK. Decongestants and
antihistamines for acute otitis media in children. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2004;3:CD001727.
57. Chang AB, Peake J, McElrea MS. Antihistamines for prolonged
non-specific cough in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2006;3:CD005604.
58. Schroeder K, Fahey T. Over the counter medications for acute
cough in children and adults in ambulatory settings. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2004;4:CD001831.
59. Abelson MB, Ferzola NJ, McWhirter CL, Crampton HJ. Efficacy
and safety of single and multiple dose ketotifen fumarate
0.025 ophtalmic solution in a pediatric population. Pediatr
Allergy Immunol. 2004;6:551-557.
60. Secchi A, Ciprandi G, Leonardi A, Deschenes J, Abelson
MB. Safety and efficacy comparison of emedastine 0.05%
ophthalmic solution compared to levocabastine 0.05%
ophthalmic suspension in pediatric subjects with allergic
conjunctivitis. Emadine Study Group. Acta Ophtalmol Acand
Suppl. 2000;230:42-47.
61. Ciprandi G, Catrullo A, Tosca M, Cerqueti P, Mondino C,
Passalacqua G, Canónica GW. Azelastine eye drops reduce
© 2007 Esmon Publicidad
 Use of antihistamines in pediatrics
conjunctival hyperresponsiveness to hyperosmolar glucose
challenge in children with asymptomatic mite conjunctivitis.
J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 1999; 9 1:35-38.
62. Sabbah A, Marzetto M. Azelastine eye drops in the treatment
of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis in
young children. Curr Med Res Opin. 1998;14: 161-170.
63. Vermeulen J, Mercer M. Comparison of the efficacy and
tolerability of topical levocabastine and sodium cromoglycate
in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in
children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 1994;5:209-213.
64. Karppinnen A, Kautianen H, Reunala T, Petman L, Reunala
T, Brummer-Korvenkontio H. Loratadine in the treatment
of mosquito-bite-sensitive children. Allergy. 2000;55:668-
671.
65. English W, Bauer C-P. Dimethindene maleato in the treatment
of pruritus caused by varicella zopster virus infection in
children. Arzneim-Forsch/Drug Res. 1997;47:1233-1235.
66. Jones NL, Roifman CM, Grifiths AM, Sherman P. Ketotifeno
therapy for acute ulcerative colitis in children. A pilot study.
Digestive Diseases and Sciences. 1998;43:609-615.
67. Aroni K, Aivaliotis M, Liossi A, Davaris P. Eosinophilic cellulitis
in a child successfully treated with cetirizine. Acta Derm
Venereol. (Stockh) 1999;79: 332.
68. Ragg P, Davidson A. Comparison of the efficacy of paracetamol
versus paracetamol, codeine and promethazine (painstop) for
premedication and analgesia for myringotomy in children.
Anaesth Intens Care. 1997;25:29-32.
69. Downs AT, Dembo J, Ferrerri G, Lyons TD, Pelphery A. A
compartive study of midazolam to meperidine/promethazine
as an IM sedative technique for the pediatric dental patient. J
Dent Child. 1997;64:197-200.
70. Cengiz M, Baysal Z, Ganidagli S. Oral sedation with midazolam
an diphenydramine compared with midazolam alone in
children undergoing resonance imaging. Paediatr Anaesth.
2006;16:621-626.
71. Köseoglu V, Kürekci AE, Sorici U, Atay AA, Ozcan O. Comparison
of the efficacy and side-effects of ondansertron and
metoclopramide-diphenhydramine administered to control
nausea and vomiting in children treated with antineoplasic
chemotherapy: a prospective randomized study. Eur J Pediatr.
1998;157:806-810.
72. Sowunmi A, Oduola AMJ, Ogundahunsi OAT, Falade CO,
Gbotosho GO, Salako LA. Enhanced efficacy of chloroquine-
chlorpheniramine combination in acute uncomplicated
falciparum malaria in children. Trans R Soc Tropical Med Hyg.
1997;91:63-67.
73. Leurs R, Church MK, Taglialatela M. H1-antihistamines: inverse
agonism, anti-inflammatory actions and cardiac effects. Clin
Exp Allergy. 2002;32:489-498.
74. Kalayci O, Saraclar Y, Adalioglu G, Sekerel B, Tuncer A. The
effect of cetirizine on sulfidoleukotriene production by
blood leukocytes in children with allergic rhinitis. Allergy.
1995;50:964-969.
75. Lanz MJ, Liu AH, Buchmeier AD, Nelson HS. Nasal nitric oxide
decreases in children with grass pollen allergy with oral
cetirizine syrup. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998;101:S244.
76. Fasce L, Ciprandi G, Pronzato C, Cozzani S, Tosca MA, Grimaldi
J, Canonica GW. Cetirizine reduces ICAM-1 on epithelial cells
during nasal minimal persistent inflammation in asymptomatic
© 2007 Esmon Publicidad
39
children with mite-allergic asthma. Int Arch Allergy Immunol.
1996;109:272-276.
77. Uguz A, Sanlioglu S, Yuzbey S, Coskun M, Yegin O. The effect
of cetirizine on IFN-gamma and IL-10 production in children
with allergic rhinitis. Turk J Pediatr. 2005;47:111-115.
78. Ciprandi G, Tosca MA, Milanese M, Ricca V. Cetirizine reduces
cytokines and inflammatory cells in children with perennial
allergic rhinitis. Allerg Immunol (Paris). 2004;36:237-240.
79. Hung CH, Li Cy, Lai YS, Hsu PC, Hua YM, Yang KD. Discrepant
clinical responses and blood chemokine profiles between
two non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications for children
with mild persistent asthma. Pediatr Allergy Immunol.
2005;16:306-309.
80. Dizdar EA, Sekerel BE, Keskin O, Kalayci O, Adalioglu G,
Dogan C, Tuncer A. The effect of regular versus on-demand
desloratadine treatment in children with allergic rhinitis. Int J
Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2007;71:843-849.
81. Simons FE, Fraser TG, Reggin JD, Roberts JR, Simons KJ.
Adverse central nervous system effects of older antihistamines
in children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 1996;7:22-27.
82. Simons FE, Reggin JD, Roberts JR, Simons KJ. Benefits/risk ratio
of the antihistamines (H1-receptor antagonist) terfenadine and
chlorpheniramine in children. J Pediatr. 1994;124:979-983.
83. Ng KH, Chong D, Wong CK, Ong HT, Lee CY, Lee BW, Shek
LP. Central nervous system side effects of first- and second-
generation antihistamines in school children with perennial
allergic rhinitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo
controlled comparative study. Pediatrics. 2004;113:116-121.
84. Lavenstein AF, Dacaney EP, Lasagna L, Vanmetre TE. Effect
of cyproheptadine on asthmatic children. Study of appetite,
weight gain and linear growth. JAMA. 1962;180:912-916.
85. Homnick DN, Marks JH, Hare KL, Bonnema SK. Long term trial
of cyproheptadine as an appetite stimulant in cystic fibrosis.
Pediatr Pulmonol. 2005;40:251-256.
86. Yasuhara A, Ochi A, Harada Y, Kobayashi Y. Infantile spasms
associated with a histamine H1-antagonist. Neuropediatrics.
1998;29:320-321.
87. Yokohama H, Iinuma K, Yanai K, Watanabe, Sakurai E,
Onodera K. Proconvulsant effect of ketotifeno, a histamine
H1-antagonist, confirmed by the use of d-chlorfeniramine
with monitoring electroencephalography. Meth Find Exp Clin
Pharmacol. 1993;15:183-188.
88. Strayhorn JM Jr. Case study: Cyproheptadine and agresión
in a five-year-old boy. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatr.
1998;37:668-670.
89. Lindsay CA, Williams GD, Levin DL. Fatal adult respiratory
distress síndrome after diphenydramine toxicity in a child: A
case report. Crit Care Med. 1995;23:771-781.
90. Cohen HA, Barzilai A, Matalon A, Harel L, Gross S. Fixed drug
eruption of the penis due to hydroxycine hydrochloride. Ann
Pharmacother. 1997;31:327-329.
91. Watemberg NA, Roth KS, Alehan FK, Epstein CE. Central
anticholinergic syndrome on therapeutic doses of
cyproheptadine. Pediatrics. 1999;103:158-160.
92. Garza MB, Osterhoudt KC, Rutstein R. Central anticholinergic
0syndrome from orphendarine in a 3-year-old. Ped Emerg
Care. 02000;16:97-98.
93. 0Reilly JF Jr, Weisse ME. Topically induced diphenydramine
0toxicity. J Emerg Med. 1990;8:59-61.
J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2007; Vol. 17, Suppl. 2: 28-40
40
94. 0Goetz CM, Lopez G, Dean BS, Krenzelok EP. Accidental
0childhood death from diphenhydramine overdosage. Am J
0Emerg Med. 1990;8:321-322.
95. 0Jumbelick MI, Hanzlick R, Cohle S. Alkylamine antihistamina
0toxicity and review of pediatric toxicology registry of the
0nacional Association of Medical Examiners. Am J Forensic
Med 0Pathol. 1997;18:65-69.
96. 0Simons FE, Silas P, Portnoy JM, Catuogno J, Chapman D,
0Olufade AO, Pahrmd. Safety of cetirizine in infants 6 to 11
0months of age: randomized double-blind, placebo-comtrolled
0study. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2003;111:1244-1248.
97. 0Bloom M, Staudinger H, Herron J. Safety of desloratadine
0syrup in children. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20:1959-1965.
98. 0Rossi GA, Tosca MA, Passalacqua G, Bianchi B, Le Garzie C,
0Canonica GW. Evidence of desloratadine syrup efficacy and
0tolerability in children with pollen-induced allergic rhinitis.
0Allergy. 2005;60:416-417.
99. 0Ostrom N, Welch M, Morris R, Rosen J, Wanderer A, Dockhorn
0R, Tinkelman D, Vandewalker M, Ziering W. Evaluation of
0ebastina, a new non-sedating antihistamine, in children
0with seasonal allergic rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
01994;93:163.
100.0Vuurman EFPM, van Veggel LMA, Uiterwijk MMC, Leutner
D, 0O’Hanlon JF. Seasonal allergic rhinitis and antihistamine
effects 0on children’s learning. Ann Allergy. 1993;71:121-
126.
101.0Stevenson J, Cornah D, Evrard P, Vanderheyden V, Billard C,
0Bax M, Van Hout A, ETAC Study Group. Long-term evaluation
0of the impact of the H1-receptor antagonist cetirizine on
0the behavioural, cognitive, and psychomotor development
0of very young children with atopic dermatitis. Pediatr Res.
02002;52:251-257.
J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2007; Vol. 17, Suppl. 2: 28-40
A del Cuvillo, et al
102.0Wiley II JF, Gelber ML, Henretig FM, Wiley CC, Sandhu S,
0Loiselle j. Cardiotoxic effects of astemizol overdose in
children. 0J Pediatr. 1992;120:799-802.
103.0Delgado LF, Pferferman A, Solé D, Naspitz CK. Evaluation of
0the potential cardiotoxicity of the antihistamines terfenadine,
0astemizol, loratadina and cetirizine in atopic children. Ann
0Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1998;80:333-337.
104.0Graft DF, Bernstein DL, Goldsobel A, Meltzer EO, Portnoy
J, 0Long J. Safety of fexofenadine in children treated for
seasonal 0allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol.
2001;87:22-026.
105.0Moss AJ, Chaikin P, Garcia JD, Guillen M, Roberts DJ,
0Morganroth J. A review of the cardiac systemic side-effects
0of antihistamines: ebastine. Clin Exp Allergy 1999;29 suppl.
03:200-205.
106.0Shekelle PG, Wool SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Clinical
0guidelines: developing guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318:593-596.
Alfonso del Cuvillo
Clínica Dr. Lobatón.
Avenida Fernández Ladreda NO 9
Cádiz 11008
Spain
E-mail: dr.cuvillo@comcadiz.es
© 2007 Esmon Publicidad